We arrived at the army camp at
Hopuhopu after a moving unveiling at Whaingaroa where
we launched the waka wairua especially carved by
James Rickard for his mother to care for her in the
homelands of our ancestors at Hawaaiki. Evas
spiritual strength and presence lingered with us all
as we wound through the pathways of her tupuna to the
lands where great champions of the poor and destitute
Tawhiao and Te Puea had also walked and inspired.

Our decision to attend the hui at
Hopuhopu which had been described in invitations and
panui in the days preceding the hui as an opportunity
for Mä to meet at look at strategies for social
justice for Mä people was prompted by the truth that
notwithstanding that it had been a day long planned
to remember our comrade and friend she would have
expected us to travel to the hui to advocate for the
rights of those people silenced by the process of
colonisation and land loss of the past century.

Hopuhopu like all state defence
institutions is an austere place, surrounded by
fences that had once been laced with barbed wire
whose entrance ways have toll gates and little boxes
that are used to housing the likes of the SS and
Military Police in times of war and confrontation.
Its entrance ways are designed to be intimidating and
unwelcoming. It was to be no different for those in
our party in this time of peace and planning.

When our group who had traveled in
convoy from the unveiling arrived at 2 p.m. we were
met by a group of Maori men who we later found out to
be part of the local rugby league team who inquired
of our purpose and our names.

We were asked if we were high
people as low people had been denied access to the
gathering.

When one of our party insulted by
this discourse refused to answer and attempted to
walk through the entrance way she was promptly
manhandled by the front row of the league team and
frog marched back to the adjoining road.

At this point I disembarked from
the vehicle I was travelling in and together with
Tame Iti went to speak to those on the gate. Attempts
were made to also contact the Public Relations
consultant to the Tainui Trust Board Susan Sarich to
clarify the position being adopted and the
gatekeepers were told in the strongest terms that as
many of our group were regarded as cutting edge
leaders in strategies and initiatives for social
justice for Maori the position being adopted apart
from offending against Tikanga Maori undermined the
very basis of the gathering itself.

At this point Tame and I were
advised that we could gain entry to clarify the
position and we were herded into a flat deck truck to
travel to the Tainui parliament house. My wairua was
unsettled by the reality that Tame and I seemed to be
regarded as some of the high people allowed access to
the self proclaimed elite while long time friends
comrades and colleagues battlers for justice, many
skilled in the laws and way of life of our ancestors
who have also armed themselves with law degrees,
economics degrees many years of experience with
Womens Refuge, rehabilitation programmes for
recently returned Maori inmates and campaigns for
constitutional change and the affirmation of Maori
rights of self determination were denied entry.

The atmosphere at the Parliamentary
gathering of the Brown table and the sycophantic
wannabees was no different . As we entered the
building we were met by someone who identified
herself as the usher of Parliament. My mind reeled at
the thought that we were now introducing into our age
old institutions the exclusionary practices and
outdated traditions of our colonisers the relevance
of which are being questioned more and more by their
own citizens. The welcoming karanga of our kuia and
the rituals of remembering the past were being
substituted by rules akin to the Parliamentary code
of misconduct.

The sea of faces that greeted me
contained many of the recently confirmed knights and
dames of the Government approved Maori realm; many of
the signatories to the notorious Sealords deal and
other sell out fiscal envelope arrangements and
surprisingly some of the key organisers of the Hikoi
of Hope. The hui was being driven by the corporate
warrior elite many of whom would struggle to recall
their last visit to the poverty stricken realities of
almost half of our people.

The chamber was being chaired by
Koro Wetere one of the key architects and agents in
the dismantling of the Department of Maori Affairs
and the New Zealand Forest Service as part of the
latest wave of colonisation of the past twenty years
privatisation with Sir Robert Mahuta; Sir Graham
Latimer and other shadowy figures at his side. As we
entered the hall Tame and I both raised as a point of
discussion the practices being adopted by those on
the gate to prevent legitimate interests into the
hui. Shane Jones tried to ignore us but the strident
requests impacted on the hearts of many in the hui if
their expressions were anything to judge by.

My heart sunk though when we raised
the issue of the practice of exclusion from the hui
only to be greeted by the silence of the guilty
including some of the emerging intelligencia of the
Maori world. To his credit Sir Graham Latimer urged
the hui to allow the group entry. The Tainui security
guards promptly ignored this request and surrounded
Tame and myself to manhandle us out of the chamber.
At this point Manu Bennett was invited to close the
hui with a prayer as attempts were made to hide us
from the media who had been invited to observe the
hui.

Meantime Mereana Pittman and other
long time advocates for Maori Sovereignty were in
ongoing conflict negotiation on the gate.
Representatives from Te Mana Motuhake o Tuhoe; Te
Kawariki; the Pakaitore Occupation; Ngai Tauira; the
Independent State of Whaingaroa together with
kaumatua from Ngati Porou; Wanganui and Tuwharetoa
had galvanized. If they were not to be allowed into
the hui as a protest to those developing policy on
their behalf they would deny them the right of exit
from the hui. A convoy blocked the road and exit ways
from Hopuhopu and the cries of concern were conveyed
to those attempting to leave the hui.

Mereana made a very poignant speech
in her usual forthright manner. She highlighted that
the very policies being developed in the hui would
mostly impact on those being denied entry and
participation in the discussions. She likened the
vetting process to the caste system in the Indian
society with those outside being likened to the
untouchable class, the lowest of the sectors in the
caste system who had been denied a voice and even
recognition by the elite of that classist world. She
warned how such processes had been the catalyst for
non violent direct action initiated by Ghandi and how
that could be expected to be the way of the future
for the Maori old boys brigade if they continued with
their exclusionary processes and corrupt practices.
She reminded those present that even the African
National Congress led by Mandela had necklaced those
kupapa in their ranks that had chosen to collaborate
with the powerful rather than advocate for the rights
and privileges of the mass of the black African
population She reminded all present to discern what
was right and just as opposed to what was being
dictated by a few.

This stinging attack certainly
impacted on many at the hui who later would suggest
that they had no idea of what had been going on at
the gate to our party as we would be told by many who
would express their concern privately but had not
countermanded the approach being adopted under the
orders of Bob Mahuta.

What does this highlight?

The hui at Hopuhopu has
subsequently been described by the brown table media
propaganda machine as the most important hui since
Sir Hepi Te Heuheu gathered people together to
challenge the crowns unfair and imposed fiscal
envelope regime. This description is both demeaning
of the Hirangi process and blatantly untrue. Unlike
the corporate practices of one or two individuals
proscribing a development agenda for Maori as has
been the crown approach of many years, the process
initiated by Sir Hepi was inclusionary, evolving;
fair and democratic. People from all walks of life;
rich and poor; kaumatua and rangatahi; tribal
fundamentalists and urban cowboys; men and women;
church and state interests were invited to observe
participate debate and develop responses for and on
behalf of those present. The three hui called and the
numerous round table discussions and working parties
initiated from the process were not a hand picked
group of mostly male individuals earning salaries in
excess of the equivalent of ten unemployment benefits
put together but were about ensuring as many people
as possible were given the opportunity to listen and
input in constructing a development agenda for Maori.

The subsequent outcomes of the hui
have already defined the direction for the Maori
world on issues of social justice. They can be
summarised as follows";

Decolonisation education

The reconstruction
of Maori processes of decisionmaking

Constitutional change
protecting Maori Treaty rights.

The model of a policy making
grouping that would advise the government was
expressly rejected in the Hirangi process as being an
ineffectual functioning body unless their policies
would be binding on the Crown and its
representatives.

What seems apparent also is that
those very ones that have sold out our rights are now
trying to seek redemption by now selling our social
development strategies to the crown. We all know who
will benefit from those practices. The self promoting
government rejects, the bureaucrats of yesterday are
already swooping in for what they perceive as
lucrative contract work as part of the National
parties stated agenda to privatise social service
delivery in the next policy round.

What these people are about is not
closing the gap but creating a chasm. They are moving
to further entrench their power through the
exploitation of our rights for short term outcomes of
personal wealth and self promotion. We urge all
reading this to resist this short term approach to
the difficult problems that have systemically been
imposed on us.

Where to from here?

The team set up at Hopuhopu cannot
be trusted with the integrity of the process for
constitutional change or to even develop a Maori
agenda. We urge you to mobilise opposition to the
suggested process that Shane Jones and Shane Solomon
are now masterminding. Maori from around the motu
should seek immediate reinstitution of a democratic
process lead by credible leadership, and principles
of openness, accountability, participation and
analysis by hui or constitutional conventions as
opposed to a handpicked few.

The so-called Maori
Leaders hui called at Hopuhopu was little more
than a farcical show of privilege. The hui has been
touted in Pakeha media as the most significant
gather of leaders since the Hirangi hui in
1995. This is a highly misleading statement. We need
to get some facts right about the hui at Hopuhopu. It
was nothing at all like the hui called by Sir Hepi Te
Heuheu, for the basic fact that Sir Hepi never denied
anyone access to the fiscal envelope hui. At Hopuhopu
a number of Maori people were not allowed
to access the hui. The attendance was limited to
those that a select group of Maori determined were
worthy to enter. Maori people were left standing at
the gates because those in control had decided they
were not of the elite group. The Hopuhopu hui reeked
of elitism and privilege. The privileged being those
who are seen as adhering to a reformist nature rather
then constitutional change.

Over the recent past Maori have
been confronted with a growing number of concerns in
terms of processes of negotiation and development for
our people. The fisheries debacle has shown us that
the Crown is more than willing to deal with an elite
few in the signing away of our fundamental rights.
Negotiated deals by Tainui Trust Board and Ngai Tahu
have both been actively challenged by hapu who have
been denied the tino rangatiratanga guaranteed to
them under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We need to be
forever mindful that the locating power in the hands
of tribal trust boards and other national
organisations is a direct outcome of Crown
manipulations. What is most disturbing now is that
many Maori actually believe that such organisations
are a part of traditional structures! Te Tiriti o
Waitangi does not refer to national organisations or
tribal trust boards, it refers to hapu

So, what we now have is the
development of a taumata by representatives of four
organisations the Maori Womens Welfare League,
Maori Congress, the Maori Council and the Federation
of Maori Authorities. These organisations also
determine who will be coopted into five other
positions on the taumata.

Shane Jones commented that there
was "clear acceptance of the need for a national
paepae", what he failed to say was that the
clear acceptance has come from a group of
people who ultimately denied wider Maori consultation
and korero. This sounds more like a Crown/colonial
process than a Maori one. Such developments must be
challenged. These organisations have been developed
for specific purposes and that does not include
denying Maori access to decision-making.

In an interview with a Pakeha
newspaper Shane Soloman stated that the hui was
"invitation only for reasons of space",
this is a damning and pathetic justification. We all
know that the hui was held there precisely so there
wouldnt be space for anyone who would challenge
the status quo. Why would a hui be called in a space
that could only hold a certain number of people
unless there was an intention to keep others out.

Robert Mahuta has been referred to
in the same article as saying there is too much focus
on peripheral issues. Such a statement denies a basic
fact, that is that the hui was not called by Maori
for Maori but was called by a group of elite Maori
for elite Maori. Such a process only maintains the
unequal power relations that exist amongst our
people. We can not afford another Sealords Deal. We
can not allow elitist groups to determine what is
needed for Maori. Having policies imposed on us by
our own is no different to having policies imposed on
us by our colonisers.

The Politics
of a National Body for Mäori

The
Hui at Hopuhopu that supposedly set up a national
body for Maori under the idea of a national paepae
has had ill fated beginnings. Blocking people from
entering a Hui and bringing in a rugby league team to
keep people out is not a good look for any Hui. The
goon squads being used by some of the
"leaders" in the process of Treaty
settlements are a clear sign that their leadership is
shaky. Theyve forgotten a key factor, that
Maori leadership needs the people to follow.

The
aim of setting up a national body is not a bad idea
in itself. But the first thing is that leadership
needs to come from those who have the integrity and
the backing of their own people not the rent-a-whanau
operatives that we are currently seeing, who rose to
prominence from the Sealords deal.

Whats
happening among iwi at present is that we are newly
attempting to establish hapu and iwi representation.
We are also attempting to find ways of working as
groups of iwi, working on the same kaupapa. Not all
Maori link to iwi, many in the cities are kaupapa
based or need convincing that even identifying as
Maori is o.k. All the different groups need to be
involved in any attempt to set up a national Maori
body. The current hassles with iwi bodies are telling
us that we cant just reproduce Western systems to get
effective representation. Too many trust boards and
runanga have ignored whakapapa when establishing
themselves. Much of the revolt is coming from youth
and women who bear a large load of the social and
economic poverty among Maori. The current structures
have been thrown together too fast in most cases in
order to access some of the funding and the Crown
status.

Any
national body that does not attempt to involve the
diversity of Maori is hopeless. The Hui at Hopuhopu
was supposed to be about closing the gap. The reality
is that no body can be representative if it does no
include the voice of Maori women working in the
refuges and every other place that works to alleviate
the pain and poverty. Maori education is largely run
by Maori women.

A
national body must also be very well versed in the
politics of power. The bicultural models and
partnership models have had their day, they
dont work because Maori dont control
every level of decision making and racism has not
disappeared from any community. The Constitutional
reform model that has been used in the Anglican
Church is being proposed as the answer to our
problems, but what looks good on paper is a
completely different experience in practice.
Constitutional reform is a must but it must be Treaty
based and it must recognise the relations of power.
The current Treaty settlement rocess has kicked off a
backlash by Pakeha who are subject to the lack of in
depth reporting by media. The Treaty itself needs to
be getting some good press. The
settlements" imply that Pakeha will
be able to kiss good-bye to the Treaty once they are
over. The Treaty is for all time and it is to
establish relationships in this country. Its a
positive framework, unique and groundbreaking in the
world. This country has the potential to lead the
world in establishing a Treaty based constitution
that once and for all acknowledges the Indigenous
people as tangata whenua. But there is some growing
up to be done first.

Fundamental
social change requires as a minimum constitutional
adjustments in the framework of lawmaking powers in
Aotearoa that are consistent with the Treaty of
Waitangi and Kaupapa Maori philosophy. This must be
accompanied by concerted efforts on the part of Maori
to retain our way of life and our processes for
maintaining our world view. The Hopuhopu initiative
does neither.

Challenges for the
Movement for Tino Rangatiratanga

Since the 1970s Maori
political activism has been a broad based social
force, encompassing a considerable variety of
political strategies, campaigns and participants. It
is only a "Movement" in the most tenuous
sense although in recent times there has been the
call on many fronts for unified action and
organisation against the onslaught of Government
policies that seek to further disenfranchise
tangatawhenua rights like the fiscal envelope Treaty
Settlement framework.

Like many of the social justice
movements for change the intensity and momentum of
Maori political activism has never been consistent.
Upturns in protest activity have been followed by
downturns in struggle and vice versa. This has often
been coupled by government strategies of cooption as
part of an overall damage control approach to the
morality of the justice of honouring the obligations
of the Treaty of Waitangi locally and respecting the
rights and obligations of indigenous populations
internationally.

The rise of the Governments
bi-culturalism policies of the 1980s coupled with the
rise of the New Right Maori elites in the 1990s lured
many Maori away from political activity throughout
the 1980s and early 1990s.

As a consequence agreement on what
constitutes tino rangatiratanga is far from
unanimous. It can often simultaneously be identified
with Maori capitalism, Maori electoral power,
cultural nationalism, or revolutionary protest
activity.

While many still look to
constitutional change and electoral politics to
change the worst excesses of the system, a number of
powerful tribal executives and corporate warriors
have argued, like the New Right ideologues in
Treasury and the Business Roundtable, that real
self-determination and liberation for Maori can only
be achieved under unrestrained, freemarket
capitalism. This false consciousness is what is being
promoted by the new elites and must be challenged and
resisted at all cost.

De-colonisation and Cultural
Nationalism has its emphasis on the rediscovery of
the role of Maori in history not just as victims but
as fighters as well, However for large sections of
the movement , this has become the objective of the
movement itself and a substitute for practical
struggle. For the most part, de-colonisation and
cultural nationalism places little or no importance
on building a political movement, or on far reaching
social change. Decolonisation and cultural
nationalism in this sense risks providing a way out
of engaging in struggle by encouraging individual
lifestyle changes rather than a strategy for
fundamental social change.